MS NOW’s Ana Cabrera Reports melted down late Thursday morning after HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced that the Trump administration will not provide Medicare or Medicaid reimbursement funding to hospitals that provide so-called “gender-affirming care” for minors. According to medical analyst Dr. Vin Gupta, “every medical society” would disagree with the administration’s rationale despite Gupta’s own employer having a research scandal just a few years ago on this very topic.
Cabrera teed up a clip of Kennedy by declaring, “The plan would block hospitals from getting Medicare and Medicaid funding, which virtually every U.S. hospital receives if they provide gender-affirming care to trans youth.”
In the clip, Kennedy was shown telling an audience that “The Trump administration will not stand by. While ideology, misinformation, and propaganda push vulnerable young people into decisions they cannot fully understand and that they can never reverse. On my watch, HHS will stand for radical transparency and informed consent.”
Cabrera then introduced Gupta and wondered, “What’s your response to that and how vast is this impact of proposals?”
Gupta began by lamenting “Well, Ana, just to begin with that, it’s incredibly vast. If they are—they’re saying that any services that are provided in hospitals for gender-affirming care will be—Medicare and Medicaid funding will be put at risk for any other unrelated service. That’s 40 percent of revenues for hospitals across the country. So the scope and the impact here is huge.”
Moving on to the substance of the Kennedy clip, Gupta continued, “I’ll just take issue with his words, though, and his framing. This is there is no—one: there’s no evidence, let’s be clear that gender affirming care. The best research and there’s limitations. But the best research has actually shown it actually improves overall mental health and well-being for those that undergo it.”
Gupta teaches at the University of Washington, which in 2022 had a scandal where the PR campaign for a study on this very topic greatly oversold its actual data that contradicts what Gupta told Cabrera.
Nevertheless, Gupta rolled right along, “And there’s no evidence that it’s been—is actually harmful. There are some risks, physiological, say, bone health and cardiovascular risks that we have to monitor, hence the importance of clinically driven care. That’s critical. But this notion here that there isn’t informed consent, this notion that this is somehow impinging on people’s freedoms, that’s wrong.”
Despite UW’s own inglorious history and other countries that are not exactly run by Religious Right types are restricting the “care,” Gupta added, “This is something that every medical society has recommended. And again, there’s no evidence that it’s actually harmful. So, let’s be clear on that.”
“Let’s be clear,” there are actually several harmful repercussions to giving minors this kind of treatment. It is just that MS NOW would rather not talk about them.
Here is a transcript for the December 18 show:
MS NOW Ana Cabrera Reports
12/18/2025
11:47 AM ET
ANA CABRERA: The plan would block hospitals from getting Medicare and Medicaid funding, which virtually every U.S. hospital receives if they provide gender-affirming care to trans youth. And here’s how Kennedy described all this moments ago.
ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR.: The Trump administration will not stand by. While ideology, misinformation, and propaganda push vulnerable young people into decisions they cannot fully understand and that they can never reverse. On my watch, HHS will stand for radical transparency and informed consent.
CABRERA: Let’s bring in pulmonologist and global health expert, Dr. Vin Gupta, an MS NOW medical contributor. Dr. Gupta, he’s calling this radical transparency and informed consent. What’s your response to that and how vast is this impact of proposals?
VIN GUPTA: Well, Ana, just to begin with that, it’s incredibly vast. If they are—they’re saying that any services that are provided in hospitals for gender-affirming care will be—Medicare and Medicaid funding will be put at risk for any other unrelated service. That’s 40 percent of revenues for hospitals across the country. So the scope and the impact here is huge.
I’ll just take issue with his words, though, and his framing. This is there is no—one: there’s no evidence, let’s be clear that gender affirming care. The best research and there’s limitations. But the best research has actually shown it actually improves overall mental health and well-being for those that undergo it.
And there’s no evidence that it’s been—is actually harmful. There are some risks, physiological, say, bone health and cardiovascular risks that we have to monitor, hence the importance of clinically driven care. That’s critical. But this notion here that there isn’t informed consent, this notion that this is somehow impinging on people’s freedoms, that’s wrong.
This is something that every medical society has recommended. And again, there’s no evidence that it’s actually harmful. So, let’s be clear on that.
